Borders
are open, but not to the people they should

Tony Hilton sent me an inter­est­ing arti­cle
yesterday, taken from the last issue of The Econ­o­mist. Enti­tled “Own goal,” this piece is about America’s immi­gra­tion
rules, which are “the oppo­site of what it needs,” accord­ing to the London-based
weekly.

I was expect­ing a long com­plaint about
the plight of poor free-market-asserting, family-values-defending Mex­i­can Ran­dian
entre­pre­neurs, in the same man­ner as Robert Heineman’s appalling speech dur­ing the last H.L. Mencken Club Con­fer­ence.
The pic­ture illus­trat­ing the arti­cle shows a His­panic woman hold­ing
a baby who wears a “Born in the USA” t-shirt and waves a stars-and-stripes flag. Under the pic­ture,
the cap­tion reads: “Get­ting ready to pay for Medicare, Med­ic­aid and the
rest,” which is as coun­ter­fac­tual as you can get. I had thus good rea­sons
to be wary of this article.

During my two-month stint in the oil fields of North Dakota, I met a lot of reporters from all over the world: Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan. The only country that wasn’t interested in the oil patch was America itself, for some reason. The only American journalists you’ll find in Williston are either from the local paper or TV crews from nearby Minot or Bismarck.

John Derbyshire's "Arctic Alliance" proposal came out over half a decade ago. If you have not read it, stop reading this and read it instead. For such a fascinating idea it has been written about far too little; I suppose it touches on a few too many taboos. It seems no thinker aside from Derbyshire has written on it. Even Derbyshire himself rarely revisits the theory; last December was an exception when he wrote, "Preserving the Arctic Alliance." He makes passing mentions of it on occasion in his other articles and radio program, and I have found some chattering about it on internet message boards. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be a thing. I am here to change that, and to explore the Arctic Alliance's practical potential, which Derbyshire has woefully ignored.

Roman Bernard is a French journalist and activist fundraiser working on behalf of multiple right wing organizations. I met Bernard at the 2012 H.L. Mencken Conference and was immediately impressed by his intellect and dedication to the cause we both shared. His story is an interesting one and I asked him to do this interview so that we might learn from his unique experiences. In particular, Bernard exemplifies how we can “Do Something” more consequential than just sharing ideas in the blogosphere. Bernard currently resides in Canada, though he hopes to eventually relocate to the United States.

A great man has died somewhere, apparently. And, although White nationalists, radical traditionalists, and decent people in general are not supposed to break down in tears, we are – so it seems – supposed to at least sniffle a little bit and look vaguely dewy-eyed. All because this ‘great man,’ this titan of our age was – let me get this straight – an enemy of the enemy of the second cousin of our ex-wife’s enemy, or something like that.

Although no actual memo was sent out, it seems that there exists a Grand Invisible Alliance that will ultimately save us from our common enemy. This enemy is apparently the evil globalist clique that is bent on turning our planet into a multicultural materialistic Orwellian-Huxleyian hellhole, etc. etc.

One of the most liberating and eye-opening revelations I ever had was stumbling across the Anonymous Conservative blog, because it provides scientific evidence for something we’ve all suspected but were afraid to articulate: liberalism is literally a mental disorder. Once you junk the premise that feminists, anti-racists, men’s rights activists, and other leftists are well-meaning but misguided, and realize that they’re deranged, self-destructive lunatics, a lot of things become easier to explain.

In this edition they are joined by Humanity+'s Rachel Haywire to discuss transhumanism, futurism, and "The Singularity," the point at which technology will replace mankind as the highest form of being. The podcast is then eerily cut short by a Skype technical issue. Our future mechanoid masters obviously didn't want this conversation to take place.

"In a society that has abolished every kind of adventure the only adventure that remains is to abolish the society."—Situationist graffiti, May 1968

As a political ideology, fascism was a mixed bag of 20th Century ideas. Its athletic presence hung with flirty, politically expedient schemes like universal suffrage, in many ways last century’s fascism was defined by its responses to other political movements of the time—like Marxism and liberal capitalism.

But, just beyond the historical details of fascism, there is something eternal. Italian writer Umberto Eco called it “Ur-fascism” —meaning “primitive” or “original.” Unfortunately, his snatchy “fourteen points” were overly concerned with the top-down totalitarianism of fascism’s notable dictators and their party boys. His “ur-fascism” wasn’t “primitive” enough. It wasn’t “eternal” at all.

The teleology of teleology will always be elusive, but occasionally, from our lowly position in the "omniscience vector," we may be vouchsafed a glimmer of the true purpose of our universe – or at least parts of it.

What, for example, is the purpose of our odd little planet circling – along with its gaseous neighbours – a mediocre star in what Douglas Adams famously called "the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the galaxy"?

What's sauce for the goose is probably porn for the gander

In a prior article posted at Alternative Right and afterwards republished at another *site*, I discussed what I felt to be the misandric double standards which adhere to contemporary writers of erotic-themed literature who happen to be phallically-afflicted; that is, male. In short, women who write explicit sex scenes are applauded for not being repressed – you go, girl! — while men who do the same are looked at askance as queasy perverts, creepy stalkers, and likely rapists. It is part of a general cultural Zeitgeist-sponsored trend which promotes obstreperous expressions of female sexuality as good and proper exercises in ‘sex-positivity’ and ‘empowerment’, while denigrating male arousal as something altogether icky and gross.